Malcolm Gladwell Explains Why We've Got The Lance Armstrong Doping Scandal All Wronghttp://www.businessinsider.com/malcolm-gladwell-lance-armstrong-2012-10/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Sun, 02 Aug 2015 14:30:39 -0400Tony Manfredhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/508003e26bb3f73b47000002Telson ZontarThu, 18 Oct 2012 09:28:02 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/508003e26bb3f73b47000002
When Jan Ullrich (Armstrong's #1 opponent) was linked to doping years ago, I realized that the only way you could beat one of the world's top cyclists who was doping was to dope yourself. Therefore Armstrong had to be doping. However, I have sympathy for Armstrong. Let's look at the situation from a professional athlete's point of view. You are a highly competitive cyclist in a sport where doping is epidemic. The only way you can compete with the top cyclists (who are doping, let's not fool ourselves) is to dope yourself. You know that the tests are not catching anyone and they can easily be circumvented. What do you do? Well if you want to make a good living in the sport, you do what the winning athletes are doing and level the playing field. Armstrong was not a mediocre cyclist who became great because he doped. He was a great cyclist pretty much from the get-go who did what top level cyclists were doing to win. He came back from a near lethal bout with cancer and became the best Tour de France rider in history. How endemic was doping in the Tour? In stripping Armstrong of his titles, they are not even trying to reward the title to anyone else because they can't seem to find a clean cyclist anywhere near the top.
Armstrong may indeed be a real hardass. Highly competitive people frequently are. Nonetheless, he has selflessly dedicated himself to great charity work that has made a significant difference in people's lives. Compare this to athletes like Tiger Woods, who though once a good golfer, is really nothing but a sleazy human being who put his wife at great risk of potentially lethal STDs... or Micheal Jordan who fritters away his fortune gambling in the Caribbean. Neither of these Nike sponsored athletes have made any positive contribution to society close to Armstong's.
Let's not delude ourselves about the prevalence of performance enhancing drugs or doping in sports. When you have high school football players taking steroids for relatively "nothing" championships, it shouldn't come as a surprise that professional athletes dope or use drugs when millions are on the line either in prize money or in contracts. Why do players unions in the NFL, MLB, and NHL resist the level of testing that is done in professional cycling?
I don't support drugs or doping in sport by any means. Until the testing catches up with drug use or you can successfully bring about cultural change in a particular sport, it is unfair to criticize athletes such as Armstrong as harshly as he is being criticized. He was an incredibly gifted, hard working cyclist who played by the same rules that other top cyclists did in his era.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/507de19e69beddaf5c000011AprilTue, 16 Oct 2012 18:37:18 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/507de19e69beddaf5c000011
Gladwell has completely jumped the shark with this ridiculous analogy. And I'm amazed, because wasn't he an athlete at some point in his life? A human is NOT a Formula 1 race car, and the implication that the same rules apply is absurd. Human bodies by virtue of DNA respond differently to drugs. Gladwell I'm sure can appreciate that a car does not HAVE DNA, they are objects, and therefore all cars respond exactly the same to the same change. This is where technology and your level of mastery of it actually creates fair advantages and disadvantages. Malcolm Gladwell, please stop feeding the beast. It's time that cycling become clean so that the next generation of riders don't think they need to risk chemical death (EPO, transfusions, etc.) to be a winner. By excusing this, you do a tremendous disservice to sport.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/507dae1eecad04f103000015eLKTue, 16 Oct 2012 14:57:34 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/507dae1eecad04f103000015
If doping is part of the game and the idea is to not get caught, then Lance loses. As a team leader he didn't succeed. He didn't take care of his team and they all turned him in. The cult of personality will crumble.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/507af6beecad04ea5e000006Steve BrewSun, 14 Oct 2012 13:30:38 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/507af6beecad04ea5e000006
I think Gladwell is being sarcastic. He is trying to show us what it was like from Lance's perspective. He was not simply saying that some people doped. Doping was an integral aspect of the competition and in order to be on a level playing field, you had to dope. The part where Gladwell says we ought to give Lance a pass is, in my opinion, secondary to the fact that he has articulated - rather eloquently - what it was like for Lance to be a competitive cyclist in such an unscrupulous climate.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/507a9daa69beddde6500003aDevSun, 14 Oct 2012 07:10:34 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/507a9daa69beddde6500003a
Gladwell might be correct in his observations, but he is wrong in his conclusion. See this: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/13/doping-cycling-level-playing-field-fallacy" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/13/doping-cycling-level-playing-field-fallacy</a>
"Who would you prefer to see winning the Tour de France: the greatest cyclist in the world or the dope-cheat with the biggest budget"http://www.businessinsider.com/c/507a330669bedd4a4b000003ggSat, 13 Oct 2012 23:35:34 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/507a330669bedd4a4b000003
Gladwell misses an important point here (besides the fact that Armstrong broke the exact rules he agreed to follow). Tweaking a race car using the best available science is one thing. Fostering and creating an environment where people are injected with dangerous drugs in order to win a bike race and make the team leader rich is a whole different criminality.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/507a318b69beddf94500000bggSat, 13 Oct 2012 23:29:15 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/507a318b69beddf94500000b
Statue of limitations? Is that in bronze?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5079ac47ecad046d60000008decoraSat, 13 Oct 2012 14:00:39 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5079ac47ecad046d60000008
I wish people making comments like this would read the actual reports and articles. Lance didn't just "use drugs", he was at the center of a conspiracy for an entire team to use drugs, he threatened people who opposed him, and he gave huge donations to the UCI which was supposed to be in charge of drug testing. It is not just about drugs, it's about corruption. This is far, far beyond what Barry Bonds or anyone else did in Baseball. It would be like if Mark Mcgwire payed off the baseball commissioner to stop asking about Steroids and then forced his teammates to use steroids or get fired.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5079ab8eeab8ea5051000003decoraSat, 13 Oct 2012 13:57:34 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5079ab8eeab8ea5051000003
If you want to analogize it with Jimi Hendrix, lets pretend that Jimi made his bandmates take drugs or get fired. That's what we are dealing with Armstrong. Bicycling is not an individual sport, and part of his 'science' was to get everyone around him to conspire to keep the 'science' going and hidden.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5079aadb69bedd7f08000015decoraSat, 13 Oct 2012 13:54:35 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5079aadb69bedd7f08000015
Let's think about it like an Auto Race.
Lance Armstrong was using illegal engines in his cars. Not only that, everyone on his 'team' he intimidated, cajoled, and yelled at to also use illegal engines, or else they would be fired. He got his girlfriends and hired a bunch of mechanics to game the system and fake what he was doing. Also, he bullied and threatened anyone who tried to tell the truth about what was happening, like Greg Lemond, and then Lance used his relationship with a third party business partner (Trek) to further hurt LeMond (Trek eventually stopped selling LeMond bicycles). Then Lance lied about it for years on end.
Malcolm Gladwell might want to read the report again, I think he might find it interesting.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50799edbeab8eaef35000012Evan ShawSat, 13 Oct 2012 13:03:23 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50799edbeab8eaef35000012
Duncan we all make choices. If we are greedy and want to be part of the gravy train, just like the housing bubble fraud, then belly up to the bar and do the time if you did the crime. Greed plus depraved indifference to others equals crime. Yes, the UCI and the teams are also complicit. That I buy in your response. Hope this clarifies things. Lance as victim, or any of the co conspirators being victims does not wear well. They did not have to dope. They choose greed and destroying others rather than making less or leaving. I am one who was a promising young neo pro. I was offered injections. I left. I knew how reprehensible and disgusting that life would be. I was lucky I had a genuinely caring family with a mother and father with integrity who made hard choices with self sacrifice for others. I knew it was wrong, and the wish to succeed did not become a temptation. It became revulsion.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5079190769bedd9e3c000006Duncan MacphailSat, 13 Oct 2012 03:32:23 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5079190769bedd9e3c000006
That's a very good point you touch upon. It's widely regarded that artists and musicians use/abuse drugs to heighten creativity. Are you going to chuck all your Hendrix CDs in the bin because he was engaged in illegal and immoral behaviour which deprived sales from other musicians further down the charts?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50791669eab8ea2c12000007Duncan MacPhailSat, 13 Oct 2012 03:21:13 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50791669eab8ea2c12000007
The Yellow Jersey is not simply awarded to the best natural cyclist, it is awarded to he who most successfully plays the game you describe in 1) through 4) above. Armstrong was indeed the most successful during his era, but his rivals were up to just the same. This is exactly why this case is so damaging to pro cycling, because it illustrates that illegal, immoral and unsporting behaviour is a fundamental part of the sport.
I think other sporting bodies will be looking at this and thinking "there but for the grace of god...".
By the way David Millar did NOT fail a dope test. His example reinforces the point that there were no credible disincentives to doping (perhaps other than being wracked with guilt).http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5078f49669bedd5b6400000bhpeteSat, 13 Oct 2012 00:56:54 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5078f49669bedd5b6400000b
So if I understand the piece correctly,the best robber,rapist or murderer etc.should get away with it with no prosecution????WTF?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5078b1ececad04cd0d000012ozjezzaFri, 12 Oct 2012 20:12:28 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5078b1ececad04cd0d000012
Gladwell sanitises the word "doping" by substituting it with "science". That and his presumption that everyone in the peleton doped is where the major holes in his argument lie.
Poor Jimi Hendrix succumbed to an addiction to science. If only there had been an agreed protocol for science use in the music industry, Jimi might still be alive today. But would he have become a superstar and would he have survived in a "level playing field" ? An argument just as spurious as poor Malcolm's.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5078a227eab8ea1e1a000003Joshua WinsorFri, 12 Oct 2012 19:05:11 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5078a227eab8ea1e1a000003
Except that isn't what happened. Lance actually benefitted in many ways from the doping controls that were in effect. 1) Many of his races were against lessor competition due to the fact that Riders were often suspend, many of which had not actually failed a test, but had been linked to known doping doctors (Operacion Puerto). 2) Once a rider had failed one test the penalty for a second failure was quite large and made the rider less likely to aggressively dope or dope at all (David Millar for instance). 3) Lance may very well have been paying off the UCI, or the doping controls, which gave him another advantage. (There have been rumors of this for a while) 4) Lance earned most of his money from sponsorships partially due to his image a "clean cyclist" in a sport of dopers. Had the truth been out there, at least some of this money would have gone to others. Finally Lance has a history of witness intimidation, that others in the Peleton are not known for (although I'm sure there was plenty of it going around)http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5078807769beddf75b000002Duncan MacphailFri, 12 Oct 2012 16:41:27 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5078807769beddf75b000002
Gladwell is explicitly not making a moral judgement or apologising for LA. He is simply observing that at the time LA played the game and played it successfully.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50787ef769beddf94f000017Duncan MacphailFri, 12 Oct 2012 16:35:03 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50787ef769beddf94f000017
ok so who is at fault? Lance Armstrong? If he'd been a goody two shoes and never doped he'd have been mid-peloton at best and you would have never heard of him. Instead, you'd have been commenting on a Beloki scandal or a Basso scandal and if not them someone else further down the list. The fault lies with the UCI and WADA who decided which rules were enforced (and so were actually rules) and which weren't (e.g doping), so could be safely ignored.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50787cb8eab8eaf042000003Duncan MacPhailFri, 12 Oct 2012 16:25:28 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50787cb8eab8eaf042000003
Gladwell's argument is sound. If Lance judged that he could get away with slashing tires/bidon in spokes etc, then he (and importantly everyone else) would have done it. However, the disincetives in terms of DQ from the commissar, bad press for the sponsor, opprobrium from the peloton are all much too high. I don't think you know much about cycling!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/507879d2eab8eaad3d000011Duncan MacphailFri, 12 Oct 2012 16:13:06 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/507879d2eab8eaad3d000011
I think because this is a USA site you maybe don't understand F1. F1 prides itself on being the most de-regulated of motorsport racing disciplines. As such, much of the competition is in out-designing the competition. This is most often displayed in exploiting ambiguity in the rules. One man's "exploiting ambiguity" is another man's "flagrant breach". Witness Jenson Button's double diffuser fiasco. The FIA shat it because he was Champ leader and they daren't strip him of points. Everyone else thought he was cheating, so the compromise was that the tech was (even more) explicitly outlawed for the next year.
Gladwell's point is that there are the rules which are written down on paper and then there are the rules which you actually get punished for. Anyone who is competitive plays to the latter. The basis on which a competitor makes that judgement call changes over time, which is why Lance (though correct in his appraisal of controlee dopage during his reign as yellow jersey) finds that the goal posts have moved and he's now on the wrong side of the rules as they are currently enforcedhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/50785273eab8ea4962000006Glad_DoucheFri, 12 Oct 2012 13:25:07 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50785273eab8ea4962000006
Once again, DoucheWell is carrying the water for big moneyed interests...when will it emerge that he's on Lance's payroll like the rest of his apologists and defenders?? Oh, and he was caught, a few times in fact (1999 Tour, 2001 Tour of Switzerland) but had the clout to sidestep those issues.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5078452aeab8ea0444000005Evan ShawFri, 12 Oct 2012 12:28:26 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5078452aeab8ea0444000005
Revulsive shock jock article. Armstrong is a sociopath and a criminal. Massive destructive. A thug and mafia boss not a competitor. Doping kills. A drug pusher and ring leader. Making this sound OK is in itself a mark of Wall Street amorality.
There is no level playing field on drugs. Only those who are willing to risk their lives to dope and some bodies utilize the dope better than others.
Hey lets have a corruptocracy where Wall st and corporations pit the weak against the poor and crush everyone. Good old misuse of Social Darwinism, Fascism and Dictatorship.
Horrible article.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5078439769bedd5c4000000fBigShermFri, 12 Oct 2012 12:21:43 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5078439769bedd5c4000000f
You're right, he was, by far, the best cheater. The best drug taker, the best intimidator, the best liar, the best ruiner of others' lives, and all these are things he used to win more than anyone else.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50784172eab8ea563700000dptkcFri, 12 Oct 2012 12:12:34 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50784172eab8ea563700000d
The problem's are many. First, what is a sport without the fans? The fans invested themselves in a sport held out to them as clean - testing procedures and so forth. That was false. Second, going forward, is use of PED's healthy? If not, use at the highest level will (and has I believe) work it's way down the chain. Would we want our kids using these in high school and college? For me, the answer is no. So they ultimately trash the sport. Maybe there are millions out there that want to watch openly juiced athletes. What then, special sidebars during the televised competition showing their intricate doping regimes? Just like looking under the hood of a car? Maybe for some, but not for me. Where would the doping techniques end? Would they cross ever more health endangering lines down the road? Why not draw the line at racing clean, period, and endgender an atmosphere where bullies like Lance are not feared nor tolerated by their peers.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/507831516bb3f7497f000012Not as ignorant as Malcom GladwellFri, 12 Oct 2012 11:03:45 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/507831516bb3f7497f000012
Gladwell seems like an idiot to me. He's arguing that Armstrong was smart because he was smarter using PEDs than anyone else; a valid point. Where he falls totally wrong is comparing him to Formula 1. The difference in the science between F1 and cycling is that science in the racing improves the car; not the driver. The drivers do immense amount of natural training to get their bodies fit for a race. When was the last time Michael Schumacher was accused of doping? Armstrong cheated. Everyone else at the time cheated. He got caught. End of story.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/507830f26bb3f7aa02000001Ben LawsonFri, 12 Oct 2012 11:02:10 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/507830f26bb3f7aa02000001
"Like, I don't know, so is that a bad thing?" Yes, Malcolm Gadfly, it's a bad thing.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50781bea6bb3f7ee59000012raystrachFri, 12 Oct 2012 09:32:26 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50781bea6bb3f7ee59000012
gladwells argument has so many holes in it, you could ride the entire peleton of the tour de france through it, one by one.
if he suppports no rules in this aspect of the sport, maybe throw out the others as well - maybe shove a bidon is someone's spokes or just bump them off the bike over a mountain pass, slash their tyres - whatever! man, did you see the way that lance took out that guy - he's awesome!
and don't even get me started on allowing a drugs' free for all. the one question i ask is - who will pay the compensation when your son or daughter or brother or sister who is an athlete dies as a result of too many drugs?
like i said, don't get me started.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5077e9eaeab8ea8668000015joeycloseFri, 12 Oct 2012 05:59:06 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5077e9eaeab8ea8668000015
but there are strict rules on what motorsport engineers can and can't do with their cars too, infact there are more options available to a cyclist to use science in their bodies and bikes than there are for mechanics to use in their cars in many respects. You have to have a level playing field in motor sport in just the same way and the rules decided that these drugs were not acceptable.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50773639ecad04f04c000001Rob GeurtsenThu, 11 Oct 2012 17:12:25 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50773639ecad04f04c000001
Aleycat, although you display a similar cowardcy as Lance Armstrong by hiding as anonymous *#&%^, I agree fully with your opinion of LA.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50772f34eab8eae153000004gregruns262Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:42:28 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50772f34eab8eae153000004
And why don't we let writers use anyone's words. Everyone has access to the same words. It wouldn't be a surprise if when one writer strung them together they looked alot like someone else's string of words. It's how you string the strings together that sets you apart from other writers.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50764f406bb3f7b76f000012slainsonThu, 11 Oct 2012 00:46:56 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50764f406bb3f7b76f000012
Here's the problem. By not being honest about the need for PEDs, the sport misleads kids and their parents. If the only way to reach the top of the sport is by using these drugs, then those kids and their parents should know from the get-go that this is required. Hopefully those who don't want to do this to themselves won't even bother to pursue it.
I don't like it in any endeavor when the rules aren't clearly explained. Don't pretend that hard work and passion will get you to the top of anything if that's not how it really works.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075d4216bb3f7dc0700001cJason FungWed, 10 Oct 2012 16:01:37 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075d4216bb3f7dc0700001c
Malcolm Gladwell's brainstorm is that "everybody else is cheating so it is OK to cheat". Brilliant. In 1930's Germany - everybody else is persecuting Jews so it is OK to persecute Jews. In 1990's Rwanda - everybody else is killing, so it is OK to kill. Yes, Malcolm, brilliant insight.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075c93a69beddf22d00000doak111Wed, 10 Oct 2012 15:15:06 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075c93a69beddf22d00000d
I think Gladwell has published very interesting thoughts and books. But in my opinion, he is plain wrong here.
If he would apply the same reasoning he uses on Armstrong, wouldn't that also be a justification the banks and WS can use to explain and excuse their reprehensible or even criminal behavior that caused the current economic crisis (whichI think is far from over)?http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075c6baecad046a1100000asljWed, 10 Oct 2012 15:04:26 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075c6baecad046a1100000a
so changing the statue of limitation isn't changing the rules..come on..http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075ba56eab8ea4d78000008InvestorWed, 10 Oct 2012 14:11:34 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075ba56eab8ea4d78000008
You'd be wrong in your assumption about the driver's in F1.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075b24a6bb3f7fa4800001bCameron FraserWed, 10 Oct 2012 13:37:14 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075b24a6bb3f7fa4800001b
My difficulty is with the comparison to Formula One. Yes, teams use the best innovation possible to get the most out of the car (within the restrictions of the rules). As far as I know there is no medical enhancement of the drivers. Equating doping of cyclists to tweaking the technology in a car means abandoning the distinctions made in the Man/Machine combination.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075b174eab8eadc64000002JLCWed, 10 Oct 2012 13:33:40 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075b174eab8eadc64000002
Right and I want an all steroid NFL with 420 lb linebackers at 3% body fathttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075ab2fecad041b5d000008i know, i know....Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:06:55 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075ab2fecad041b5d000008
..... you don't need to grade my writing on a quick BI post.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075aad6eab8eaef5000000djust my thoughts...Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:05:26 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075aad6eab8eaef5000000d
people say that doping isn't fair b/c it gives the doper the advantage over the non-dopers; fair enough. however, if everyone is doping, then one must think that the playing filed has returned to the "fair" medium that it's intended to be. there is a lot more evidence that most of the cyclist were doping than not; so, one must conclude that the advantage was pretty much null in void.
the same for baseball as well. a lot of people we doping in baseball... a lot. however, most people only talk about the HR hitters in baseball. there were as many pitchers doping as hitters. a pitching work out regiment is just different that a hitters.... so, while you didn't see huge biceps, there legs were tough as nails. at any rate.... doping or no doping..... people like bonds would've been the best in their era either way.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075aa4e6bb3f7b439000020JAWed, 10 Oct 2012 13:03:10 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075aa4e6bb3f7b439000020
Well Gladwell is totally full of s^^t.
There is something called rules.
In auto racing that means you cannot place a JP4 Pratt and Whitney Jet Engine in the car, as an example.
In bike racing the rules are you do not dope.
In boxing, you are not allowed to kick your opponent in the balls.
Yea, rules; what a pain.
Of course, rules can be changed (e.g.raise the basketball hoops, lower the baseball mound, allow forward passing, etc), but no matter how rules are changed you will STILL wind up with a new set of rules.
So, either you abide by a set of rules, or, if you choose not to, find another occupation.
Here's a good idea - a new rule !! ; everyone steal a copy of Gladwell's books instead of buying them; and if you are good at it, you should be rewarded !!!!
Better yet if you are a good cat burglar and identity thief, burgle Gladwell's home and steal his identity and all his $$$$$ and HEY, IF YOU ARE GOOD AT IT, NOT ONLY WILL YOU NOT GET CAUGHT, HE WILL REWARD YOU FOR BEING REAL GOOD AT THEFT.
Yes, rules are a pain in the asshttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075a83a69bedd525f000001TobbyWed, 10 Oct 2012 12:54:18 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075a83a69bedd525f000001
Anyone that follows bike racing is aware that all the top riders doped back in the days. It was an open dirty little secret. It is significantly cleaner now with better testing protocols. Bike racing is a multi-billion dollar business, and the world organizers are aware that a full reckoning of who doped and when would excessively tarnish the sport and likely destroy the golden egg. Follow the money...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075a76869beddf558000005glebsavWed, 10 Oct 2012 12:50:48 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075a76869beddf558000005
If that's the case the following athlete's should be exonerated of their wrong doings:
Barry Bonds
Mark McGwire
Justin Gatlin
Marion Jones
Ben Johnson
and the list goes on and on and on...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075a5cceab8ea9d48000009VaferWed, 10 Oct 2012 12:43:56 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075a5cceab8ea9d48000009
Oh right. Racing teams in F1 strictly adhere to all the rules. right.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075a58769bedd6555000006VaferWed, 10 Oct 2012 12:42:47 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075a58769bedd6555000006
Armstrong was caught? Where's the physical evidence? Oh right, there isn't any.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075a4606bb3f7e932000001Cody T.Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:37:52 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075a4606bb3f7e932000001
So he's saying that the best cyclists all dope, and that Armstrong just doped better and smarter than the rest? The strange thing is that it sounds legit to me. From what it sounds like it would be difficult to find a cyclist who performs well that is all natural. As such, he should be allowed to keep his titles. If all the best cyclists dope, then the runner-ups who will be receiving his titles have done the same thing he has, and should not be given anything.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075a39969bedd3e50000006Joseph FroncioniWed, 10 Oct 2012 12:34:33 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075a39969bedd3e50000006
The point Gladwell misses here is the Lance was not "within the rules". The innovations in F1 must be within the rules or the team faces sanctions or disqualifications.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075a2d869beddb14f000006Harold GWed, 10 Oct 2012 12:31:20 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075a2d869beddb14f000006
Old saying, "It's not illegal if you don't get caught."
Gladwell is wrong from even his own viewpoint. If Armstrong was good, he wouldn't have been caught.
What would Gladwell think if someone plagiarized the **#&$ out of one of his books and tried to pass it on as their own?
Hey, I'm just changing the rules of the game?!?!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075a07aecad04ae49000005alleycatWed, 10 Oct 2012 12:21:14 -0400http://www.businessinsider.com/c/5075a07aecad04ae49000005
Gladwell is just arguing the rules should change, which is fine. Freak show, whatever. But the current rules don't allow PEDs. Why not allow baseball players to 'roid up, cork their bats, and so forth. Maybe we can allow the bicyclists to poison their competition during water breaks. When does it end?
Armstrong is very good at riding bicycles, but he's a liar, and a cheat. I'd have a lot more respect for him if he was making this argument instead of Gladwell, but he's always denied using PEDs.